Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 08, 2016, 01:50:25 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...  (Read 5545 times)

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« on: November 11, 2008, 03:19:34 PM »
WIndows Server 2008 R2 is due for release and looks like a hefty update - the most striking feature is that from this version 32-bit servers are history ..

See: http://windowsitpro....your-average-r2.html

CWuestefeld

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,002
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2008, 03:50:17 PM »
the most striking feature is that from this version 32-bit servers are history
Sigh. That's going to be a big problem for my team. We're developing server software, so we naturally want to use the platform we're developing for (i.e., Windows Server).

However, our development tools (Microsoft's own Visual Studio, SQL Server Management Studio, etc.) are completely unstable in the 64-bit environment. For example, the two tools I mentioned specifically cannot run simultaneously; when they're both up, one of them will always crash within a few minutes.

The only way we can be productive today is in the 32-bit environment. Microsoft is going to have to do something to stabilize the OS and/or the tools (I'm not sure on which side the fault lies).

When they're done with that, they should do something about the confusion of managing the 64-bit environment, what with the WOW thing, the bizarre remapping of the Program Files, the fact that .Net recognizes different machine.config files depending on which environment is running, etc.

Darwin

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,984
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2008, 04:22:18 PM »
Thanks for the heads up, Carol. I just installed Windows Server 2008 64-bit on my notebook and will watch out for the update to R2  :Thmbsup:
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2008, 04:30:55 PM »
The question that doesn't seem clear is what happens to 2008 32-bit users? Does R2 automatically update them to 64-bit or are they simly dead in the water.

I presume that once 64 bit only appears then 64 bit workstation OSes will also start to become the norm and the tools will become stable when they don't have to cope with separate code bases.

Can't help but feel that this is the way forward. Now all we have to do is convince MS that only one version of the workstation OS is required in Windows 7 - ie. a single 64 bit OS for users and a server version.

Now wouldn't that be nice?  :Thmbsup:
« Last Edit: November 11, 2008, 04:33:12 PM by Carol Haynes »

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2008, 04:33:43 PM »
WIndows Server 2008 R2 is due for release and looks like a hefty update - the most striking feature is that from this version 32-bit servers are history ..

See: http://windowsitpro....your-average-r2.html
About fscking time - it's the only way to get 64bit accepted (and developers, possibly including Microsoft itself, to support it properly).

CWuestefeld: is that 32bit apps on the 64bit OS, or 64/64? Would surprise me a bit if MS couldn't make stable 64bit versions of their flagship server apps, considering that NT supports some pretty massive x86 systems.
- carpe noctem

Darwin

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,984
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2008, 04:36:40 PM »
The question that doesn't seem clear is what happens to 2008 32-bit users? Does R2 automatically update them to 64-bit or are they simly dead in the water.

I think they'll be dead in the water WRT updating - they'll be frozen at the last version of Windows Server 2008 32-bit. I wonder if Microsoft will continue to provide security updates for 32-bit versions, though? Surely they'd have to... the only *penalty* is going to be access to the updates/new features in R2 and future updates/new features. So you could say that the feature set will be fixed. Just rambling...
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin

CWuestefeld

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,002
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2008, 06:10:01 PM »
CWuestefeld: is that 32bit apps on the 64bit OS, or 64/64? Would surprise me a bit if MS couldn't make stable 64bit versions of their flagship server apps, considering that NT supports some pretty massive x86 systems.

IIRC, both of the apps I cited are 32-bit. Note, these aren't the server apps themselves, but the tools used for building such apps. It seems obvious to me that you'd want to be able to run these tools on the platforms that you're trying to develop for. If you've got a bug in a 64-bit app and you need to run the debugger, you've got difficulties as it is.

Josh

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Points: -5
  • Posts: 3,397
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2008, 10:48:20 PM »
What f0dder said. It's about time. I still say that leaving all of this old code in and not embracing the future is what causes windows to have so many slow downs and bulk up in size. Hell, we still have moricons.dll in windows Vista which is from the windows 3.11 days, hence why every icon in it is a 16 bit ms dos application. Cut the cord, for those who refuse to update, thats on them (sorta like our very own app103 who wouldn't update past Windows ME for the longest time). There will always be stragglers. Apple got it right where they cut out old version compatibility in exchange for stability and speed. Way to go MS, I commend you

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2008, 03:35:11 AM »
One way MS could encourage this is to provide a free (or at least extremely cheap - say media costs) crossgrade to all versions of 64 bit OS versions and make it worth it for the business desktop, consumer and server markets by providing so killer free 'ultimate' addons (for all versions of Vista64 and Windows 7-64) that really appeal to the targetted markets.

It is ironic that when Vista was originally announced MS said that all versions of Vista would come in 32-bit and 64-bit form and be supplied together in the same package - did this ever actually happen? AIUI if you buy a retail 32-bit version you can get a free 64-bit version but you have to request the DVD, and if you have OEM versions then forget it.

One big change they could make is to say to OEMs that from Windows 7 on only 64-bit is going to be available for OEM builds. That would give some real incentive for manufacturers to get hardware compatability in the pipeline and also force software companies (large and small) to start developing for the 64 bit platform and porting older software for new OS versions. Effectively this would force the change to 64bit in one generation of Windows.

I also figure if people shout loud enough and long enough "CUT THE F****ING CHORD ON COMPATIBILITY" MS might eventually get the message. It isn't rocket science and it is simple to provide backward compatibility through VM - they could even supply it preinstalled with VMs for common operating systems (Win98, Win XP and Win Vista would cover it).

If they feel unable to cut the chord with Windows 7 why not have a timetable to cut the chord or at least say that from Windows 7 the following technologies are considered obsolete and will not be included from Windows 8 ?

As things stand it is like expecting every car manufacturer to be able to use Model-T Ford parts in every car on the production line.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2008, 03:39:14 AM by Carol Haynes »

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2008, 05:05:55 PM »

One big change they could make is to say to OEMs that from Windows 7 on only 64-bit is going to be available for OEM builds. That would give some real incentive for manufacturers to get hardware compatability in the pipeline and also force software companies (large and small) to start developing for the 64 bit platform and porting older software for new OS versions. Effectively this would force the change to 64bit in one generation of Windows.

They might have been able to do that five or six years ago, but I don't think Microsoft is in much of a position to get heavy handed with its customer base any more. Look at the pushback they got when they tried to force Vista on their corporate customers.

The other problem is all those functional servers out in the corporate forests that are still rendering yoeman service as file and print servers, backup servers, etc. 64-bit is not needed for very many (maybe most) business functions - and to try to force a full shift in hardware infrastructure for dubious technical "improvements" would be suicidal. And the business market is Microsoft's bread & cheese so they'd be insane to force the issue on a group that is already annoyed with Microsoft's byzantine licensing and product SKUs.

If an IT manager starts to question just how necessary Windows Server is, the whole house of cards Microsoft has so carefully built over the years is in jeopardy. Especially now that there are workable (and in some cases superior) alternatives to much of its product line.



Quote
It isn't rocket science and it is simple to provide backward compatibility through VM - they could even supply it preinstalled with VMs for common operating systems (Win98, Win XP and Win Vista would cover it).

Now that is a very nice way to deal with backwards compatibility. Brill Carol! :Thmbsup:

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2008, 06:08:51 PM »
Quote
It isn't rocket science and it is simple to provide backward compatibility through VM - they could even supply it preinstalled with VMs for common operating systems (Win98, Win XP and Win Vista would cover it).
Now that is a very nice way to deal with backwards compatibility. Brill Carol! :Thmbsup:
I'm it's a bad way to do it, at least if you're considering the "classical" sence of a VM where you do CPU emulation (which is slowis, even with clever JIT'ing), and takes up a lot of harddrive space for the separate OS installs.

It would also signal defeat wrt. 3rd-party programmers who don't program according to specs, and I don't like that.

Besides, for most purposes, emulation (or rather, translation) layers like WoW64 work pretty well, and are a lot more efficient. For stuff it can't handle, like 32bit drivers, a VM approach wouldn't really help. There's not much hindering that a layer like WoW64 could be made an optional component, although it's unlikely to happen anytime soon; there's simply too much 32bit software around that hasn't been rewritten 64bit clean, including MS's own.

Anyway, the NT kernel can handle different subsystems for executable files, with of course win32 (which it's also called for 64bit apps :P) being the dominant. But there was (limited?) OS/2 support once, there's SFU offering a POSIX subsystem, and theoretically one could write his own. All end up depending on the NT Native API, but that's not really a problem.
- carpe noctem

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2008, 02:58:41 AM »
I was thinking of the VM being more like the current compatibility layer (only a version that actually works) for 32 bit software. During installation the 32-bit could be set and then load the compatibility layer automatically as required.

I am not sure I understand the current VM models well enough but AIUI stuff like VMWare doesn't actually emulate a CPU - it makes use of the CPU to execute code (which is why if you have a multiple core system you can choose which cores to use and leave alone - and even run different machines on separate cores). VMWare isn't slow - but it would be a hell of a lot faster (probably faster than most current machines) if it were coded for 64-bit and run on a version of Windows that doesn't carry all the baggage.

The question is how do you get people to migrate to 64 bit without the big stick approach? Visiting people's homes to fix problems I see all sorts of things (including lots of Windows 98/ME which are no longer supported) still out there. I don't usually like the heavy handed approach of Microsoft but there comes a point where something drastic is needed. I suspect that most larger companies have contracts with MS and so they will be supplied with new server software on a regular basis without further cost (and probably desktop operating systems).

The lack of take up of Vista can be put down to three major issues: software compatibility (this could be easily solved in all future versions of windows with good quality and transparent VM support), lack of any appreciable advantage to business of Vista and the terrible press and bug ridden release pre-SP1. If MS are to maintain any sort of market confidence Windows 7 (and server 2008R2) are going to have to address these issues big time and win customers back - I can't see them doing that if their operating systems continue to grow in hardware demands exponentially - Windows XP came on a CD and could be up and running in less than a couple of gigs of disk space and no huge hardware demands, Windows Vista came on a DVD can take up to 12Gb just to install and has made huge hardware demands (as far as businesses are concerned) - and for what business gain? Are business really going to make the leap because you can't use DX10 on Windows XP, or for the Aera interface in its current incarnation?

One method for reducing the OS overhead and actually getting bang for your buck with all this fantastic hardware that is coming out is to make the OS as unintrusive as possible. No one runs a machine for the OS - they run it for the apps and when a 64 multicore system with oodles of memory runs slower than the previous incarnation on 32bit tech, small hard disc and minimal memory something is wrong somewhere. The only way forward is to get Windows out of the users' faces and reduce the huge footprint and the obvious way to do that is to cut the chord with the past in a planned way. MacOSX did it and haven't suffered (and by the way left MacOS 9 support in the form of some sort of VM model). The key is being planned about it - Microsoft plan loads of stuff and then simply don't deliver - Vista is a case in point. We had years of hype about all the new and improved technologies (not least a new filing system) and almost none of them were delivered. They even promised ultimate addins for people who bought the ultimate version and none of it has happened. How is this helping the consumer experience?

My experience of moving XP onto a 64 bit dual core system is a bit of an improvement in speed (and that is good) but it hasn't given me anything else. My experience of Vista on the same hardware was a huge loss of speed and no particular advantage in any way.

Sorry started to rant ...
« Last Edit: November 13, 2008, 03:01:02 AM by Carol Haynes »

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2008, 06:20:50 AM »
I was thinking of the VM being more like the current compatibility layer (only a version that actually works) for 32 bit software. During installation the 32-bit could be set and then load the compatibility layer automatically as required.
So more like "generic virtualizaion", and not a full-blown Virtual Machines, then?

I am not sure I understand the current VM models well enough but AIUI stuff like VMWare doesn't actually emulate a CPU - it makes use of the CPU to execute code
Yes, it tries to execute as much code "as-is", but certain things have to be fixed up and other things have to be completely emulated. It's sure faster than complete emulation like bochs, but still a good deal slower than the real thing.

VMWare isn't slow - but it would be a hell of a lot faster (probably faster than most current machines) if it were coded for 64-bit and run on a version of Windows that doesn't carry all the baggage.
I don't see how that would make it faster, to be honest. You still get the CPU hit... Paravirtualization is an interesting (and faster) option, but requires that the guest OS is (re)written for it.

The lack of take up of Vista can be put down to three major issues: software compatibility (this could be easily solved in all future versions of windows with good quality and transparent VM support)
It's not easy to support all previous OS'es quirks - even vmware doesn't handle "ring0 without driver" hacks of win9x, which were used by a couple of software protection schemes. And a VM wouldn't really make things easier, just a lot heavier.

WoW64 actually works pretty well. The main issue is with drivers (including all the annoying software protection crap) and not with running 32bit software on 64bit windows. I daresay that it's a much bigger problem running applications without admin privileges under Vista... which is simply because of moronic developers who never tested their software under a limited user account. And apparently didn't read MS guidelines on software development either. And it's not really a Vista problem, per se... it's just too bad MS didn't make the default system account a reduced-privilege user much earlier, like at least Win2k.

The only way forward is to get Windows out of the users' faces and reduce the huge footprint and the obvious way to do that is to cut the chord with the past in a planned way.
I don't see how cutting the past helps, in this regard. I haven't analyzed what all the files on a Vista install are for, but my guesstimate is that it's the "new stuff" that takes up most of the space. For instance, I was able to shave off 6 gigabytes from the x64 Vista Business installation by vLite'ing it, and removing new stuff that I wouldn't need.
- carpe noctem

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2008, 06:42:12 AM »
I don't usually like the heavy handed approach of Microsoft but there comes a point where something drastic is needed. I suspect that most larger companies have contracts with MS and so they will be supplied with new server software on a regular basis without further cost (and probably desktop operating systems).

I must have missed that program up on the Microsoft Partner website. ;D

Every company I work with (including some Fortune 500 behemoths) pays for each and every copy of Windows they use regardless of whether it is the server or desktop version.

AFAIK Microsoft does not do "free" when it comes to their operating systems. And "site-licensing" has not proven popular due to the costs involved.

Minor point: IT does not generally welcome new versions of Windows. Most organizations are very reluctant to upgrade server and desktop software as long as their current version is working. So unless the newer version offers significant and measurable benefits, most businesses will only go to the new release when they buy new hardware that includes it. Buying a new computer is still the most cost-effective (as opposed to cheapest) way to buy a copy of Windows.
 8)




« Last Edit: November 13, 2008, 06:48:46 AM by 40hz »

CWuestefeld

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,002
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2008, 08:01:07 AM »
I must have missed that program up on the Microsoft Partner website. ;D

Every company I work with (including some Fortune 500 behemoths) pays for each and every copy of Windows they use regardless of whether it is the server or desktop version.

AFAIK Microsoft does not do "free" when it comes to their operating systems. And "site-licensing" has not proven popular due to the costs involved.

Minor point: IT does not generally welcome new versions of Windows. Most organizations are very reluctant to upgrade server and desktop software as long as their current version is working. So unless the newer version offers significant and measurable benefits, most businesses will only go to the new release when they buy new hardware that includes it. Buying a new computer is still the most cost-effective (as opposed to cheapest) way to buy a copy of Windows.
 8)

My employer derives well over a billion dollars in revenue a year from such licenses. I could cite a list of household-name companies as long as my arm that are customers of ours, and satisfy their s/w needs (Microsoft, Adobe, McAfee, etc) with licenses like this. For medium-to-large companies, license agreements is the way to get your software. Actually, I can only think of one household-name-size company that does not do this.

(These aren't quite "site-licenses"; they don't mean "everyone regardless of how many"; there are price gradations that set ceilings on the number of deployed licenses. Typically a customer will self-audit annually and purchase additional true-up licenses at that time. But within the agreed-on range, there's little concern. So at the margin it behaves like a site license.)

Some sw manufacturers offer things akin to Microsoft's "Software Assurance" program, which gives you the right to ongoing upgrades of covered products over a time period (3 years for MS). So Carol is exactly right.

For large organizations, getting an OS upgrade via new hardware is decidedly not the most cost-effective approach. This is due to the costs of IT support. Generally speaking, large organizations want to minimize the variety of systems they must support. Having to maintain the skillset for multiple systems, needing to keep track of who has what, needing to get a meaningful answer from the user about (what version of Windows do you have? What about Office?) is a really significant cost.

This is true for hardware as well. You personally can get a computer much cheaper because you're only supporting yourself; we have many large customers who are willing to pay a premium to us to ensure that we'll be able to supply to them the exact same models over a full generation in their business (say, three years); we must stock a warehouse with these to ensure that if the manufacturer discontinues the model, we'll still have a sufficient stock to satisfy those customers.

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Windows Server 2008 R2 - 64 bit only from here on ...
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2008, 11:29:30 AM »
(These aren't quite "site-licenses"; they don't mean "everyone regardless of how many"; there are price gradations that set ceilings on the number of deployed licenses. Typically a customer will self-audit annually and purchase additional true-up licenses at that time. But within the agreed-on range, there's little concern. So at the margin it behaves like a site license.)

Some sw manufacturers offer things akin to Microsoft's "Software Assurance" program, which gives you the right to ongoing upgrades of covered products over a time period (3 years for MS). So Carol is exactly right.

Perhaps I misunderstood what Carol was saying. I thought she was speaking of an unlimited site license, which Microsoft, as you point out, does not offer. Software Assurance programs are another matter. But when all is said and done, these are basically risk insurance policies.

Maybe your experience is different than mine, but the companies I deal with that have bought into MS software agreements have done so primarily to address license compliance concerns rather than for technical reasons. Far smarter to buy a few more licenses than you might actually need; and audit yourself (and also be allowed to get caught-up after the fact if you discovered you fell short) than to deal with a BSA enforcement action.

For my clients, the fact they can upgrade to newer additions of software covered by an 'assurance' agreement falls more under the "nice to have" category. To your point:

Quote
Having to maintain the skillset for multiple systems, needing to keep track of who has what, needing to get a meaningful answer from the user about (what version of Windows do you have? What about Office?) is a really significant cost.

I think you've said the same thing I'm saying here. Although a company has the right to upgrade, the logistics and support issues of having half its staff on Windows XP and Office 2003, and the other half on Vista and Office 2007 would create more support issues than would be gained in increased productivity by going over to the new versions. Assuming, of course, that there were any demonstrable gains in productivity to begin with. So unless all of the hardware seats are capable of upgrading, you probably won't. Which brings us to the issue of hardware...

As far as hardware goes, I still maintain that new operating systems demand new hardware. Microsoft is already saying as much with their announced intention to abandon 32-bit on the server side with their next release. If you're supplying 2 and 3 year old hardware configurations to some of your clients, then I'd suspect most of those machines are not running Microsoft's newest OS.

Quote
For large organizations, getting an OS upgrade via new hardware is decidedly not the most cost-effective approach. This is due to the costs of IT support. Generally speaking, large organizations want to minimize the variety of systems they must support.

I'm not talking about picking up boxes with Windows pre-installed willy-nilly from CDW when I say it is more cost-effective to upgrade your OS and hardware at the same time. I'm talking about structured enterprise deployments. Maybe I should have been more clear on that point.

If you are going to effectively deploy a new OS, you are also going to need updated hardware and drivers written specifically for the new OS to gain the full benefits of doing so. As a result, the companies I deal with do not change their underlying OS until they are ready to deploy a new "known good" hardware platform to go with it. That is why I believe it is more cost effective to coordinate your OS update with the acquisition of new hardware.

The thing that effectively tanked Vista on the corporate desktop was Microsoft's refusal to acknowledge that most of the machines sitting in offices couldn't run Vista effectively. And then stonewalling when it became obvious. Add in legacy driver issues, and problems with new drivers and it was over before it even started. I guess Microsoft admitted as much since they're allowing 'downgrades' to XP on a Vista license. Maybe what they should consider is allowing you to run ANY version of Windows under the Software Assurance program rather than just giving you the opportunity to 'upgrade.'

Quote
You personally can get a computer much cheaper because you're only supporting yourself; we have many large customers who are willing to pay a premium to us to ensure that we'll be able to supply to them the exact same models over a full generation in their business (say, three years); we must stock a warehouse with these to ensure that if the manufacturer discontinues the model, we'll still have a sufficient stock to satisfy those customers.

Ouch! Maybe I'm not in your company's league as far as client sizes are concerned; but I do work with some of the "big kids" so I'm not talking about "only supporting yourself" here. ;D

Still, I'm not sure why these people are paying your company a premium to stockpile older hardware other than for their IT department's personal convenience. It would make a lot more sense for them to just contract you to provide "known-good" machine and device driver configurations for whatever OS they're deploying. They could contract you to make sure whatever you supply works with their standard software suite so that there are minimal hardware issues that could result in support headaches.

I'm sure your company's present methodology works quite well with the size of the clients you obviously have.

(Billions of dollars! The very sound of that makes me smile! :-*)

But it's also a brute-force "swap and drop" approach that isn't very elegant or eco-friendly. Still, whatever works since there's no arguing with success from a business perspective. And if you guys are doing volume in the billions you're obviously doing something right. (From a business perspective at least! ;D)


« Last Edit: November 13, 2008, 02:40:26 PM by 40hz »